How is the size defined for a gas planet? The gas density just keeps dropping, where do you draw the line (isosurface, rather)? Earth's radius is always the one without earth's atmosphere.
Jupiter was formerly twice its current size, had a much stronger magnetic field
21–30 of 78 posts
Re: Jupiter was formerly twice its current size, had a much stronger magnetic field
#22I've always wondered about the core of these gas giants. I assume it is some liquid form of light elements. What is puzzling is the presence of the gas giants in the middle of solar system's planetary line up: why are they in the middle and the ones closer or further away from the central star are not like them? Is it the temperature gradient?
Wikipedia is a good place to start getting a feel for the possible history of the Solar System:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jupiter#Formation_and_migratio...
Re: Jupiter was formerly twice its current size, had a much stronger magnetic field
#23I am deeply skeptical of any "research" that concludes something in the past. The scientific method relies on observation, experimentation, and replication, but these aren't possible with past events, so we can't directly test or falsify historical claims. Instead, researchers infer conclusions based on indirect evidence like documents, artifacts, or statistical patterns—often without being able to isolate variables…
Re: Jupiter was formerly twice its current size, had a much stronger magnetic field
#24How is the size defined for a gas planet? The gas density just keeps dropping, where do you draw the line (isosurface, rather)? Earth's radius is always the one without earth's atmosphere.
As others note, the definition of Jupiter’s radius is set by where the pressure is 1 bar. This is somewhat arbitrary, but the arbitrariness doesn’t matter much: the pressure drops to 1 micro bar just 320 km higher, which is <0.5% of Jupiter’s ~70,000 km radius.
Re: Jupiter was formerly twice its current size, had a much stronger magnetic field
#25I am deeply skeptical of any "research" that concludes something in the past. The scientific method relies on observation, experimentation, and replication, but these aren't possible with past events, so we can't directly test or falsify historical claims. Instead, researchers infer conclusions based on indirect evidence like documents, artifacts, or statistical patterns—often without being able to isolate variables…
Observations are inherently always about the past.
Re: Jupiter was formerly twice its current size, had a much stronger magnetic field
#26Earlier quoted context omitted.
Observations are inherently always about the past.
That’s true in a narrow sense—every observation records something that has already happened. But in science, observations can be tested, replicated, and used to predict future outcomes. The kind of "research" I'm skeptical of draws broad, causal conclusions about unique, unrepeatable past events where none of that is possible.
Re: Jupiter was formerly twice its current size, had a much stronger magnetic field
#27How is the size defined for a gas planet? The gas density just keeps dropping, where do you draw the line (isosurface, rather)? Earth's radius is always the one without earth's atmosphere.
As others note, the definition of Jupiter’s radius is set by where the pressure is 1 bar. This is somewhat arbitrary, but the arbitrariness doesn’t matter much: the pressure drops to 1 micro bar just 320 km higher, which is <0.5% of Jupiter’s ~70,000 km radius.
Re: Jupiter was formerly twice its current size, had a much stronger magnetic field
#28I've always wondered about the core of these gas giants. I assume it is some liquid form of light elements. What is puzzling is the presence of the gas giants in the middle of solar system's planetary line up: why are they in the middle and the ones closer or further away from the central star are not like them? Is it the temperature gradient?
Why would you assume that? The heavier elements such as iron are likelier to move to the center of gravity.
Re: Jupiter was formerly twice its current size, had a much stronger magnetic field
#29I've always wondered about the core of these gas giants. I assume it is some liquid form of light elements. What is puzzling is the presence of the gas giants in the middle of solar system's planetary line up: why are they in the middle and the ones closer or further away from the central star are not like them? Is it the temperature gradient?
> I assume it is some liquid form of light elements. Why would you assume that? The heavier elements such as iron are likelier to move to the center of gravity.
Re: Jupiter was formerly twice its current size, had a much stronger magnetic field
#30Earlier quoted context omitted.
> I assume it is some liquid form of light elements. Why would you assume that? The heavier elements such as iron are likelier to move to the center of gravity.
I'd assume these elements would be created in the sun and keep close to the sun, because of their higher mass.
The heavier elements being formed in our sun now are going to stay there until something can tear it apart.